Surely not?

[xray one]

British Army's fleet of Apache helicopters 'could be scrapped' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9722347/British-Armys-fleet-of-Apache-helicopters-could-be-scrapped.html)

Rise of the cheap drones....they'll eventually be the largest force throughout the 3 services....

[Roadster280]

Well it's been in service for 8 years with the AAC. Not entirely unusual for an MLU, and not entirely unusual not to upgrade all of them. There must be a couple of attrition losses, and a couple of hangar queens, so this doesn't seem too surprising to me.

[downsizer]

Are we due another PR? Seems the usual bollox, all options on the table, blah, blah blah....

[Jabba_TG12]

thing is though, because we did a licensing deal to stop Westland from being shut, we ended up paying over the odds for these things compared to what we could have done if we had bought off the shelf from Sikorsky.

Much as he is derided around these parts, Lewis Page's comment of "we could have bought direct from Sikorsky, laid off everybody at Westlands with a million pounds payoff and still have had a billion left" compared to what we did get.

Not to say that the UK spec'd AH64D isnt a good platform, it has proved itself. What has been letting it down appears to be the through life aspects of it. Personally, once we're out of Afghan, the demands against the fleet are going to be less, arent they...? Why it cant be that the upgrade/capability uplift programme cant be run against a core strength of the fleet, leaving several at the old D spec until a point further down the line... I'd rather that course of action than to end up scrapping the lot. Thats just bloody stupid.

On saying those words, I think I realise now how the Nimrod guys felt. Then again, IMVVVVHO, that project should have been strangled at birth anyway....

But... as is the MoD's way... it'll end up being a clusterf**k. :mad: Its what they do best....

[West Coast]

Foresee the USMC forwarding this story to the US Army recommending they put in a low ball offer for used Apaches.

[Jimlad1]

So in other words, a basic piece of defence staffwork, which includes the costs of the 'delete Apache' option in order to help understand costs suddenly means we're scrapping Apache?

I thought the DT couldnt get much worse, but clearly I was wrong!

[GrahamO]

Anyone care to explain the difference between a D and an E variant for us numpties ?

[JFZ90]

I suspect these decisions can be complicated, particularly when you have an on-going development cycle & production line that you don't have to support, and are facing the pending removal of support for your current type.

It may sound odd but options such as buying a smaller than usual number off the shelf, flogging them to death for 10 years, then scrapping them, could work out attractive from both a capability and cost point of view compared to a more traditional 25 year buy and all that entails. If the US are paying for the bulk/all the 64D to 64E (and potentially future 64F etc.) development costs, it may make sense. Some DLoDs may complicate issues of course.

Airlines have a habit of flogging ac as they approach e.g. a big D check - not quite the same, but principle is similar.

[MAINJAFAD]

Jabba

Lewis Page talks out of his backside, as does the Telegraph in this case. The Apache helicopter we use is the WAH-64 which is not a AH-64D as we heavily modified the aircraft with different engines and other modification which allow us to operate the aircraft at full operational capabilities, where the rest of the AH-64 users cannot (i.e. we don't have to take bits off to allow the thing to get off the ground where it is hot and high), plus they also allow the AAC to operate effectively from ships....which the rest of the AH-64 users can't. No doubt a MLU will be required to update the electronics which are common between the WAH-64 and AH-64D to the E standard, however most of the modifications to the AH-64D to the new E standard are to allow the US Army to have an Apache as good as ours. Also Page never takes into account that if the thing is built in the UK, a good 50% of the cost at minimum goes straight back into the government coffers (income tax, fuel tax, corporation tax, national insurance, etc.) as the biggest cost is the wage bill!! Buy it from overseas and 100% of the money is gone from the UK period!!!

[BossEyed]

thing is though, because we did a licensing deal to stop Westland from being shut, we ended up paying over the odds for these things compared to what we could have done if we had bought off the shelf from Sikorsky.

Sikorsky would have had to buy the design from Boeing (MCDD, as was) first, though. Which would have "us" a pretty penny to underwrite. Sikorsky having never, ever, anything to do with the Apache. Good grief.

Then again, maybe - just maybe, and I might be guessing here - Jabba is a Sciolist.


PS: Lewis Page is, and always has been, an un-informed dramatist.

PPS: Therefore, anybody who takes him seriously cannot themselves be taken seriously.

PPPS (and this one's pedantry, I admit): There's no such thing as a "WAH-64D". It's a "WAH-64".

:zzz:

[MAINJAFAD]

Thanks Bosseye for the correction, its normally an AH Mk 1 as far as I'm concerned.

[Hedge36]

Foresee the USMC forwarding this story to the US Army recommending they put in a low ball offer for used Apaches.

"Hey Sarge, where do we get wrenches to fit these here metric birds?"

[chopper2004]

However two key words popped up which came to mind such as "replace" and Tiger.

Go back to my sweet and innocent days of academia, there was a guy in my UOTC unit I knew who passed his then RCB back in 96 and the chat we had casually turned to my favorite matters of the heart. When mentioning the previous years selection of the WAH-64D, he reckoned (unsubstantiated) that politics go, that as interim measure the Longbow would be used and then replaced with the Tiger eventually. Jurassic Park seemed more realistic :P :) (funnily enough so did the USAF Captain in the Pentagon thought so in Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor when told that the new Japanese regime had invaded Guam by the retired USCG Master Chief living on there)

Then again we could go back into an argument of AH-64 versus Tiger argument as according to said press report "Military sources said that the Tiger would be strongly opposed by British commanders, who regard it is inferior to the Apache."

@Graham, the Block III upgrade to the existing AH-64D is the new 'E'

Cheers

[Jabba_TG12]

BossEyed:

Ouch. That was a bit close to the belt. :} Cant completely deny it but where I dont know enough about something I can only react with what info is immediately available to me. MainJAFAD offers quite a bit in clarification, some things I was aware of, some things I wasnt.

So basically, the upshot is that this is effectively a DT flagwaving/scaremongering exercise and it doesnt really matter what the US does to their own Apaches then because they're as different as they are alike?

[green granite]

Where else are the government going to get the £2bn that they have announced they are going to give to the 3rd world to help combat climate change? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[melmothtw]

PPPS (and this one's pedantry, I admit): There's no such thing as a "WAH-64D". It's a "WAH-64".


Not according to the MoD factsheet, and not according to Jane's.


...allows us to operate the aircraft at full operational capabilities, where the rest of the AH-64 users cannot

Used to be true, but not so anymore. Improvements to their engines and transmissions means the US Army machines now have about the same power output as the UK aircraft.


...the AAC to operate effectively from ships....which the rest of the AH-64 users can't.


Dutch Apaches are 'marinised' also.



however most of the modifications to the AH-64D to the new E standard
are to allow the US Army to have an Apache as good as ours.


You're so so wrong. The AH-64E (Block III) will be light years ahead of the WAH-64D (Block 1-standard) Apaches we currently operate in any differentiator you wish to choose.

[rjtjrt]

If the British Army want, I'm suspect the Australian Army might swap their Eurocopter Tigers for your Apaches, and even throw in some money to induce you to take the Tigers off their hands!
They would probably throw in their MRH-90's (NH-90 variant) as an inducement.

John

[Hedge36]

If the British Army want, I'm suspect the Australian Army might swap their Eurocopter Tigers your Apache's, and even throw in some money to induce you to take the Tigers off their hands!
They would probably throw in their MRH-90's (NH-90 variant) as an inducement.

John


And a few SH-2s.

[rjtjrt]

Re SH-2.
Too late - no longer available from us. We made Kaman an offer that was too good to refuse!

John

[MAINJAFAD]

Used to be true, but not so anymore. Improvements to their engines and transmissions means the US Army machines now have about the same power output as the UK aircraft.

So I've found out after a bit of research, but my information source was somebody who flew the thing, while I was sitting in the rear cockpit of one 4 years ago.

You're so so wrong. The AH-64E (Block III) will be light years ahead of the WAH-64D (Block 1-standard) Apaches we currently operate in any differentiator you wish to choose.

On the Avionics I would agree with you, after again doing a bit of googling (my comment was based on the engines and transmission side of things), but that is hardly surprising seeing that I bet quite a bit of that technology going into the 64E was originally developed for the RAH-66.

[BossEyed]

PPPS (and this one's pedantry, I admit): There's no such thing as a "WAH-64D". It's a "WAH-64".

Not according to the MoD factsheet, and not according to Jane's.

MOD and Jane's are wrong. :}

WAH-64 was/is the Westland (as was) 'model number' for the RTM322+UK bits Yeovil assembled AH-64D, but it was - from the beginning- misused by the press and elements of MOD as "WAH-64D", which I reckon is the legacy we now see.

Anyway, as I say, it is pedantry and really rather irrelevant. As MAINJAFAD points out, it's the "Apache AH Mk.1" really.

Jabba - sorry, my old, it was a bit blunt. But not knowing the US company that builds the beast rather fatally undermined the credibiity of your argument!

[melmothtw]

MOD and Jane's are wrong. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


So is Boeing it would appear...

Boeing: Boeing Delivers First WAH-64D Apache Longbow for the United Kingdom to GKN Westland Helicopters (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980928n.htm)


No offence, but I'll take the MoD, Jane's and Boeing over Pprune.

[BossEyed]

Fair enough*.

The definitive answer, of course, would be from A-W since their predecessors named the baby; and nowadays they also call it the "Apache AH Mk.1" post the GKN-Westland days.

The more interesting discusion would be whether Tiger truly would be a sensible alternative to upgrading the Apache for the AAC. I can think of many arguments on the debit side; there are fewer that immediately come to mind for the credit side, but then I am more familiar with the Apache than Tiger.


*"Eppur si muove" :ok:

[Willard Whyte]

To be fair Boeing then go on, in that article, to refer to it as WAH-64 several times in the text.

However,

1. I prefer American designations
2. It's always fun winding up 'name-pedants'